You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:

Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.

Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.

In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.

Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.

Which begs another question: who is the "self" that is exercising "self-determination"? The Parliament of the UK is gaining power[1] but it is not synonymous with "the people and infrastructure of the United Kingdom" and I think the interests of the former are decoupled from the latter. As I've said before, MP's are stupid, malevolent or distanced. For such people, messing up the present, concrete UK in favour of some abstraction is not a problem.

Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...

[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.

"Self" is the people of the UK, being able to vote in and out politicians that have control over their lives. ie. not Juncker

And if we still retained our sovereignty and independence then it would be a lot easier to leave the EU than it currently is.

I know what you mean, but judging from past and present events, the "self" who is currently wielding power is Parliament not the people, and (forgive my repetition) Parliament is not acting in the interests of the people of the UK any more. The ability to vote them out in 2022 is not enough to compensate for this.

You would prefer to be ruled by politicians we can't vote out rather than ones we can?

You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:

Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.

Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.

In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.

Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.

Which begs another question: who is the "self" that is exercising "self-determination"? The Parliament of the UK is gaining power[1] but it is not synonymous with "the people and infrastructure of the United Kingdom" and I think the interests of the former are decoupled from the latter. As I've said before, MP's are stupid, malevolent or distanced. For such people, messing up the present, concrete UK in favour of some abstraction is not a problem.

Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...

[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.

"Self" is the people of the UK, being able to vote in and out politicians that have control over their lives. ie. not Juncker

And if we still retained our sovereignty and independence then it would be a lot easier to leave the EU than it currently is.

I know what you mean, but judging from past and present events, the "self" who is currently wielding power is Parliament not the people, and (forgive my repetition) Parliament is not acting in the interests of the people of the UK any more. The ability to vote them out in 2022 is not enough to compensate for this.

You would prefer to be ruled by politicians we can't vote out rather than ones we can?

I find this attitude completely bizarre and surprisingly prevalent.

I would prefer to be ruled by politicians that a) I can vote out and b) who act in my favour. My complaint is that I can't and they don't, and that "Leave" is not helping this.

The SNP might try and hold another referendum on indy after Brexit, especially if it is a No Deal Brexit. However they will not be able to make a declaration of UDI, Westminster would not accept it and see how much support Catalonia got internationally when it went down that route

The SNP might try and hold another referendum on indy after Brexit, especially if it is a No Deal Brexit. However they will not be able to make a declaration of UDI, Westminster would not accept it and see how much support Catalonia got internationally when it went down that route

In particular, while I hope and pray Westminster would not behave with the same cavalier as Madrid showed over Catalonia, I cannot see how Scotland would be able to join the EU under those circumstances.

You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:

Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.

Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.

In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.

Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.

Which begs another question: who is the "self" that is exercising "self-determination"? The Parliament of the UK is gaining power[1] but it is not synonymous with "the people and infrastructure of the United Kingdom" and I think the interests of the former are decoupled from the latter. As I've said before, MP's are stupid, malevolent or distanced. For such people, messing up the present, concrete UK in favour of some abstraction is not a problem.

Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...

[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.

"Self" is the people of the UK, being able to vote in and out politicians that have control over their lives. ie. not Juncker

And if we still retained our sovereignty and independence then it would be a lot easier to leave the EU than it currently is.

I know what you mean, but judging from past and present events, the "self" who is currently wielding power is Parliament not the people, and (forgive my repetition) Parliament is not acting in the interests of the people of the UK any more. The ability to vote them out in 2022 is not enough to compensate for this.

You would prefer to be ruled by politicians we can't vote out rather than ones we can?

I find this attitude completely bizarre and surprisingly prevalent.

I would prefer to be ruled by politicians that a) I can vote out and b) who act in my favour. My complaint is that I can't and they don't, and that "Leave" is not helping this.

Perhaps because what you want isn't supported by enough people in the country to be voted in to form a government. That's democracy.

I don't think May will resign if she loses the MV in a big way. But I'll be amazed if she doesn't immediately propose either a second referendum or a GE immediately after a big defeat on it. Doesn't mean either would be guaranteed to happen (it would come down to internal Conservative party politics then) but...

She can just about pretend "nothing has changed" if she loses it reasonably narrowly (sub 30-40?) and can start thinking about MV2 and some sort of fudge, but a defeat of more than 100 and she needs to have something sufficiently big to counteract that.

She's already appearing to be in some sort of campaign mode anyway - can't see what most of her recent thinking has been about if not taking her deal to the people at some point.

Given that the Tories have more than a third of MPs, if she proposes a GE she would need a fair few Tory MPs to vote for one. That may be what happens but I am expecting her to get hit with a party VONC before, on, or very shortly after 11 Dec if she doesn't resign as both PM and party leader first.

The SNP might try and hold another referendum on indy after Brexit, especially if it is a No Deal Brexit. However they will not be able to make a declaration of UDI, Westminster would not accept it and see how much support Catalonia got internationally when it went down that route

In particular, while I hope and pray Westminster would not behave with the same cavalier as Madrid showed over Catalonia, I cannot see how Scotland would be able to join the EU under those circumstances.

It would certainly set a precedent for the Catalans and I doubt Spain would accept Scottish membership of the EU after UDI as a result

I don't think May will resign if she loses the MV in a big way. But I'll be amazed if she doesn't immediately propose either a second referendum or a GE immediately after a big defeat on it. Doesn't mean either would be guaranteed to happen (it would come down to internal Conservative party politics then) but...

She can just about pretend "nothing has changed" if she loses it reasonably narrowly (sub 30-40?) and can start thinking about MV2 and some sort of fudge, but a defeat of more than 100 and she needs to have something sufficiently big to counteract that.

She's already appearing to be in some sort of campaign mode anyway - can't see what most of her recent thinking has been about if not taking her deal to the people at some point.

Given that the Tories have more than a third of MPs, if she proposes a GE she would need a fair few Tory MPs to vote for one. That may be what happens but I am expecting her to get hit with a party VONC before, on, or very shortly after 11 Dec if she doesn't resign as both PM and party leader first.

She won't propose a GE I think, more likely a referendum including the Deal as a last resort

I would prefer to be ruled by politicians that a) I can vote out and b) who act in my favour. My complaint is that I can't and they don't, and that "Leave" is not helping this.

Perhaps because what you want isn't supported by enough people in the country to be voted in to form a government. That's democracy.

Or perhaps the MPs and the party system have become so disconnected from concrete reality that no government will do so. That may be the actual reality. And I think it best to deal with reality not abstractions.

I think the question most of the "people's vote" brigade don't want to answer is what happens in the event of a second leave vote? I think if we had a second referendum leave would win by a fairly handy margin just by campaigning on the "who really runs the country" and the whole "people vs the elites" that has torn through the rest of Europe and the US.

This is inflamatory nonsense TSE. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. It cannot act outwith the role given to it by Westminster. This has been tested in several Supreme Court cases. So if it purported to pass legislation making Scotland independent that legislation would be struck down.

Similarly, those who are elected to the UK Parliament are part of a larger body. Even when the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MPs it did not have a majority in the UK Parliament and could not pass any legislation there.

Of course those arguing for a second referendum do weaken the argument for those that oppose a second referendum in Scotland in that they were both supposed to be once in a generation votes. But their obsession with the EU really means they give very little thought to that. Nothing is more important to them.

Also, if the SNP made a noref leave manifesto commitment they wouldn't win a majority, I'd guess that the Tories would be second largest party only a few seats behind in Holyrood and the unionists parties would easily have a majority.

In the run-up to the MV do we think there will be any deselection threats to Tory MPs? Presumably part of May's 'strategy' is to bring public pressure to bear on MPs and I would have thought part of that might come through party members.

Also, if the SNP made a noref leave manifesto commitment they wouldn't win a majority, I'd guess that the Tories would be second largest party only a few seats behind in Holyrood and the unionists parties would easily have a majority.

The Unionist parties are going to have a majority in the next Scottish Parliament anyway Max. I think the SNP will still be the largest single party though.

But, surely you can argue this both ways. Suppose the following sequence of events does happen:

First, the UK votes to leave with a free unicorn for every household.

Second, tough negotiations reveal that there are no unicorns.

Third, the leave vote is overturned in a Second Referendum.

Now replace the UK with Scotland.

Once a referendum vote is overturned, then no single referendum vote can be considered final. There are dangers for the SNP in supporting a second referendum on the terms of the Deal, because the same will be claimed to apply to any successful Scottish independence vote.

Essentially, once a single referendum is insufficient to cause an event to happen, & multiple referendums have to succeed, then the bar for Scottish independence actually happening is substantially increased.

This is inflamatory nonsense TSE. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. It cannot act outwith the role given to it by Westminster. This has been tested in several Supreme Court cases. So if it purported to pass legislation making Scotland independent that legislation would be struck down.

Similarly, those who are elected to the UK Parliament are part of a larger body. Even when the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MPs it did not have a majority in the UK Parliament and could not pass any legislation there.

Of course those arguing for a second referendum do weaken the argument for those that oppose a second referendum in Scotland in that they were both supposed to be once in a generation votes. But their obsession with the EU really means they give very little thought to that. Nothing is more important to them.

If the SNP explicitly put in their manifesto that if they win a majority of seats or votes in Scotland in a Westminster GE they will consider that as a mandate for independence and they win one or both of those then it is clear what the will of the people is.

That's democracy, think of it as analogous to the 1918 general election in Ireland.

To be brutally honest, although I very much do not want Scotland to leave the UK, the UK leaving the EU is certainly a large enough change from what was campaigned upon (I recall Scots being told the only way to be sure of staying in the UK was to vote No) to justify calls for a fresh referendum.

Also, if the SNP made a noref leave manifesto commitment they wouldn't win a majority, I'd guess that the Tories would be second largest party only a few seats behind in Holyrood and the unionists parties would easily have a majority.

The Unionist parties are going to have a majority in the next Scottish Parliament anyway Max. I think the SNP will still be the largest single party though.

Yes, but this would make a 5-10 seat majority for the unionists into a 20 seat majority. The SNP still get a lot of votes from unionists based on them being the only serious party of government in Holyrood, that 5% will go back to Labour and Con in a flash if they proposed what is essentially a UDI.

But, surely you can argue this both ways. Suppose the following sequence of events does happen:

First, the UK votes to leave with a free unicorn for every household.

Second, tough negotiations reveal that there are no unicorns.

Third, the leave vote is overturned in a Second Referendum.

Now replace the UK with Scotland.

Once a referendum vote is overturned, then no single referendum vote can be considered final. There are dangers for the SNP in supporting a second referendum on the terms of the Deal, because the same will be claimed to apply to any successful Scottish independence vote.

Essentially, once a single referendum is insufficient to cause an event to happen, & multiple referendums have to succeed, then the bar for Scottish independence actually happening is substantially increased.

However, if there is an EU second referendum which results in a 'remain' vote, one of the key arguments for Scottish independence will fall.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

This is inflamatory nonsense TSE. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. It cannot act outwith the role given to it by Westminster. This has been tested in several Supreme Court cases. So if it purported to pass legislation making Scotland independent that legislation would be struck down.

Similarly, those who are elected to the UK Parliament are part of a larger body. Even when the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MPs it did not have a majority in the UK Parliament and could not pass any legislation there.

Of course those arguing for a second referendum do weaken the argument for those that oppose a second referendum in Scotland in that they were both supposed to be once in a generation votes. But their obsession with the EU really means they give very little thought to that. Nothing is more important to them.

If the SNP explicitly put in their manifesto that if they win a majority of seats or votes in Scotland in a Westminster GE they will consider that as a mandate for independence and they win one or both of those then it is clear what the will of the people is.

That's democracy, think of it as analogous to the 1918 general election in Ireland.

It may be democracy but it is not the law. And there would be no legal way of implementing the vote for the SNP in those circumstances. In fairness the SNP themselves seem to accept that a second and successful referendum would be needed.

This is inflamatory nonsense TSE. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. It cannot act outwith the role given to it by Westminster. This has been tested in several Supreme Court cases. So if it purported to pass legislation making Scotland independent that legislation would be struck down.

Similarly, those who are elected to the UK Parliament are part of a larger body. Even when the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MPs it did not have a majority in the UK Parliament and could not pass any legislation there.

Of course those arguing for a second referendum do weaken the argument for those that oppose a second referendum in Scotland in that they were both supposed to be once in a generation votes. But their obsession with the EU really means they give very little thought to that. Nothing is more important to them.

If the SNP explicitly put in their manifesto that if they win a majority of seats or votes in Scotland in a Westminster GE they will consider that as a mandate for independence and they win one or both of those then it is clear what the will of the people is.

That's democracy, think of it as analogous to the 1918 general election in Ireland.

You think it would lead to eight years of war?

Edit - although it's more concerning you seem to think it would cause the assassination of Nicola Sturgeon...

This is inflamatory nonsense TSE. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. It cannot act outwith the role given to it by Westminster. This has been tested in several Supreme Court cases. So if it purported to pass legislation making Scotland independent that legislation would be struck down.

Similarly, those who are elected to the UK Parliament are part of a larger body. Even when the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MPs it did not have a majority in the UK Parliament and could not pass any legislation there.

Of course those arguing for a second referendum do weaken the argument for those that oppose a second referendum in Scotland in that they were both supposed to be once in a generation votes. But their obsession with the EU really means they give very little thought to that. Nothing is more important to them.

If the SNP explicitly put in their manifesto that if they win a majority of seats or votes in Scotland in a Westminster GE they will consider that as a mandate for independence and they win one or both of those then it is clear what the will of the people is.

That's democracy, think of it as analogous to the 1918 general election in Ireland.

If they do I'd be very surprised if they won either of those, they definitely wouldn't win in terms of votes in Westminster and I think the unionists would shade it in terms of seats as well based on tactical voting.

This is inflamatory nonsense TSE. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. It cannot act outwith the role given to it by Westminster. This has been tested in several Supreme Court cases. So if it purported to pass legislation making Scotland independent that legislation would be struck down.

Similarly, those who are elected to the UK Parliament are part of a larger body. Even when the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MPs it did not have a majority in the UK Parliament and could not pass any legislation there.

Of course those arguing for a second referendum do weaken the argument for those that oppose a second referendum in Scotland in that they were both supposed to be once in a generation votes. But their obsession with the EU really means they give very little thought to that. Nothing is more important to them.

If the SNP explicitly put in their manifesto that if they win a majority of seats or votes in Scotland in a Westminster GE they will consider that as a mandate for independence and they win one or both of those then it is clear what the will of the people is.

That's democracy, think of it as analogous to the 1918 general election in Ireland.

You think it would lead to eight years of war?

Depends how powerfully and rapidly MalcolmG can launch turnips.

I don't expect war but I can see Catalonia style unpleasantness, especially if the UK Prime Minister is someone like Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg dealing with this situation.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

This is inflamatory nonsense TSE. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. It cannot act outwith the role given to it by Westminster. This has been tested in several Supreme Court cases. So if it purported to pass legislation making Scotland independent that legislation would be struck down.

Similarly, those who are elected to the UK Parliament are part of a larger body. Even when the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MPs it did not have a majority in the UK Parliament and could not pass any legislation there.

Of course those arguing for a second referendum do weaken the argument for those that oppose a second referendum in Scotland in that they were both supposed to be once in a generation votes. But their obsession with the EU really means they give very little thought to that. Nothing is more important to them.

If the SNP explicitly put in their manifesto that if they win a majority of seats or votes in Scotland in a Westminster GE they will consider that as a mandate for independence and they win one or both of those then it is clear what the will of the people is.

That's democracy, think of it as analogous to the 1918 general election in Ireland.

You think it would lead to eight years of war?

Depends how powerfully and rapidly MalcolmG can launch turnips.

I don't expect war but I can see Catalonia style unpleasantness, especially if the UK Prime Minister is someone like Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg dealing with this situation.

Let's face it, having either of those as PM is going to make everything worse.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

As a wind up it is not one of TSE's better efforts.

It's not a wind up, the SNP are looking to break up the United Kingdom by using Brexit, they've gone public, that merits a thread.

I'm sorry you don't like that but it does have a lot of (betting) implications, if you notice I'm also rather disdainful of the people behind the 'people's vote'.

If we do end up staying in the EU and re-running the Scottish Independence referendum (yes, I know how unlikely that is), I'd like one of two things. Either for the vote to be UK wide, or for at least one of the major national Westminster parties to campaign to get rid of Scotland. I voted Remain in the Brexit referendum, but would quite like to be rid of Scotland (who I see having way too much political influence at present, plus a political culture at odds with the rest of the UK). But in the last Scottish independence referendum, nobody wanted to pick up that baton.

But, surely you can argue this both ways. Suppose the following sequence of events does happen:

First, the UK votes to leave with a free unicorn for every household.

Second, tough negotiations reveal that there are no unicorns.

Third, the leave vote is overturned in a Second Referendum.

Now replace the UK with Scotland.

Once a referendum vote is overturned, then no single referendum vote can be considered final. There are dangers for the SNP in supporting a second referendum on the terms of the Deal, because the same will be claimed to apply to any successful Scottish independence vote.

Essentially, once a single referendum is insufficient to cause an event to happen, & multiple referendums have to succeed, then the bar for Scottish independence actually happening is substantially increased.

However, if there is an EU second referendum which results in a 'remain' vote, one of the key arguments for Scottish independence will fall.

But, I am looking at it from the point of view of the SNP!

If your aim is Scottish independence, why do you want a second vote on the terms of the deal? It is a very dangerous precedent.

I suspect that following the experience of Brexit the last thing that the people of Scotland would want is a further extended period of constitutional trauma. That is why I expect the SNP to struggle at the next Westminster election to exceed circa 33%.

I'm a Remain voter and a Yes voter - I want to see an independent Scotland within the EU.

I'd be surprised if independence came from a direct election rather than an independence referendum, but it seems a reasonable position on paper if the continued theme from Westminster is "now is not the time".

The biggest problem I think we're going to have convincing people to vote Yes is that it won't all turn into a massive shit-show like the Leave vote in EURef has, where ultimately, yes you can just about leave - with a bunch of compromises noone's a massive fan of and much wailing and gnashing of teeth to get there.

On the flipside the point will be made about basically a Remainer trying to Leave (in May) being quite sub-optimal and unlikely to be the same in post-Yes negotiations, but it's not the strongest rebuttal. I daresay a lot of folk on the fence won't be convinced it won't just end up in the same complicated dragged-out state of affairs.

I don't think May will resign if she loses the MV in a big way. But I'll be amazed if she doesn't immediately propose either a second referendum or a GE immediately after a big defeat on it. Doesn't mean either would be guaranteed to happen (it would come down to internal Conservative party politics then) but...

She can just about pretend "nothing has changed" if she loses it reasonably narrowly (sub 30-40?) and can start thinking about MV2 and some sort of fudge, but a defeat of more than 100 and she needs to have something sufficiently big to counteract that.

She's already appearing to be in some sort of campaign mode anyway - can't see what most of her recent thinking has been about if not taking her deal to the people at some point.

Given that the Tories have more than a third of MPs, if she proposes a GE she would need a fair few Tory MPs to vote for one. That may be what happens but I am expecting her to get hit with a party VONC before, on, or very shortly after 11 Dec if she doesn't resign as both PM and party leader first.

Seems reasonable. Like I say May could propose something in the immediate aftermath of a heavy defeat in the vote on the 11th in a desperate attempt to stay in position (by moving the narrative on and showing she still has ideas), but never actually end up delivering on it.

I could also see her losing the MV comfortably yet winning a Govt VONC (just) and a Tory VONC (relatively comfortably) and then noone having a clue where to go next.

I suspect that following the experience of Brexit the last thing that the people of Scotland would want is a further extended period of constitutional trauma. That is why I expect the SNP to struggle at the next Westminster election to exceed circa 33%.

I suspect this may be right, or partially right.

The incredible thing is that there was not a third Quebec referendum, despite the PQ losing the last one traumatically by (50 - epsilon) to (50 + epsilon). There was not one more heave.

I think the same will be true of Europe. We will exit with May’s deal (or something very like it put forward by Gove or Corby), and then interest in Europe will die away after all the paroxysms of rage and angst.

Nonsense like this illustrates why we need a codified constitution. The Blair government joyfully ripped out the first threads of our old constitutional tapestry with the lopsided devolution settlement and the Human Rights Act. Now we have descended into a free-for-all.

If we fail to get a grip, we will suffer from greater political instability, which is not conducive to prosperity. Even worse, less and less people will see government as legitimate, opening a way to far uglier forms of politics.

But, surely you can argue this both ways. Suppose the following sequence of events does happen:

First, the UK votes to leave with a free unicorn for every household.

Second, tough negotiations reveal that there are no unicorns.

Third, the leave vote is overturned in a Second Referendum.

Now replace the UK with Scotland.

Once a referendum vote is overturned, then no single referendum vote can be considered final. There are dangers for the SNP in supporting a second referendum on the terms of the Deal, because the same will be claimed to apply to any successful Scottish independence vote.

Essentially, once a single referendum is insufficient to cause an event to happen, & multiple referendums have to succeed, then the bar for Scottish independence actually happening is substantially increased.

I'd wouldn't really have any problem with Unionist parties campaigning for another referendum after the event of a yes vote for Scottish indy, though I guess they might have some veracity problems after so strenuously denying that there should be another one, even after their promises of continuing EU membership and stability turned out to be so much bullshit.

I think the difference in situations is that for better or worse, Scottish indy has a much clearer prospectus (currency & EU membership uncertainties notwithstanding); we're two and a half years from the Brexit vote, four months from a no deal exit, and still NO ONE has a clue what's going to happen.

I think the question most of the "people's vote" brigade don't want to answer is what happens in the event of a second leave vote? I think if we had a second referendum leave would win by a fairly handy margin just by campaigning on the "who really runs the country" and the whole "people vs the elites" that has torn through the rest of Europe and the US.

What is there not to answer? In the event of a second Leave vote the UK leaves...

Hopefully at that point, either as a referendum choice or as a decision by parliament before the referendum, we also have a bit more idea *how* it leaves, eg with TMay's deal, don't take any deal, etc.

But, surely you can argue this both ways. Suppose the following sequence of events does happen:

First, the UK votes to leave with a free unicorn for every household.

Second, tough negotiations reveal that there are no unicorns.

Third, the leave vote is overturned in a Second Referendum.

Now replace the UK with Scotland.

Once a referendum vote is overturned, then no single referendum vote can be considered final. There are dangers for the SNP in supporting a second referendum on the terms of the Deal, because the same will be claimed to apply to any successful Scottish independence vote.

Essentially, once a single referendum is insufficient to cause an event to happen, & multiple referendums have to succeed, then the bar for Scottish independence actually happening is substantially increased.

However, if there is an EU second referendum which results in a 'remain' vote, one of the key arguments for Scottish independence will fall.

But, I am looking at it from the point of view of the SNP!

If your aim is Scottish independence, why do you want a second vote on the terms of the deal? It is a very dangerous precedent.

Quite the reverse. It is a useful precedent when you want a second referendum yourself.

Of course Nicola Sturgeon, who is one of our more competent politicians, only wants a second referendum if she thinks she can win it. And there are some problems with that.

Last time around, rather like some deluded ERG members, we were repeatedly assured that a velvet divorce with rUK would be the easiest deal in history. Anyone claiming that now is likely to be laughed at.

Last time around there was an argument about whether Scotland could remain in the EU and thus the SM with rUK. What is clear, post Brexit, is that Scotland will have to choose and the SM with rUK is generally thought to be about 4x as important as the EU for Scottish trade.

Last time around there were many posters boasting about how the £1k extra tax revenue per head from the North Sea could be spent. Now the north sea, in tax terms, is pretty much a liability with massive reliefs and clear up costs to be funded.

I could go on but the truth is that an independent Scotland is currently far less viable than it was in 2014. A second referendum would be lost more substantially than the first. Nicola is waiting for the tides to change but she does have problems with the more impatient elements of her party.

This is inflamatory nonsense TSE. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. It cannot act outwith the role given to it by Westminster. This has been tested in several Supreme Court cases. So if it purported to pass legislation making Scotland independent that legislation would be struck down.

Similarly, those who are elected to the UK Parliament are part of a larger body. Even when the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MPs it did not have a majority in the UK Parliament and could not pass any legislation there.

Of course those arguing for a second referendum do weaken the argument for those that oppose a second referendum in Scotland in that they were both supposed to be once in a generation votes. But their obsession with the EU really means they give very little thought to that. Nothing is more important to them.

If the SNP explicitly put in their manifesto that if they win a majority of seats or votes in Scotland in a Westminster GE they will consider that as a mandate for independence and they win one or both of those then it is clear what the will of the people is.

That's democracy, think of it as analogous to the 1918 general election in Ireland.

You think it would lead to eight years of war?

Depends how powerfully and rapidly MalcolmG can launch turnips.

Well, I understand he is somewhat awesome when it comes to ballistic root vegetables.

We've got different worldviews on referendums, certainly. I've banged on enough about mine and I'm not likely to persuade you around.As it happens, in an alternate future where Remain had won, if the EU had reneged in any way on the Cameron Deal, or if the outcome had proven significantly different from what had been promised by Remain, I'd have strongly supported a second referendum there as well, and for very similar reasons.I hope I've been consistent enough that you believe me on this.

Indeed. I just don't think the politicians - who are overwhelmingly Europhile - would have shared your integrity. Nor do I think they will going forward if we don't leave this time.

Quite the reverse. It is a useful precedent when you want a second referendum yourself.

Of course Nicola Sturgeon, who is one of our more competent politicians, only wants a second referendum if she thinks she can win it. And there are some problems with that.

Last time around, rather like some deluded ERG members, we were repeatedly assured that a velvet divorce with rUK would be the easiest deal in history. Anyone claiming that now is likely to be laughed at.

Last time around there was an argument about whether Scotland could remain in the EU and thus the SM with rUK. What is clear, post Brexit, is that Scotland will have to choose and the SM with rUK is generally thought to be about 4x as important as the EU for Scottish trade.

Last time around there were many posters boasting about how the £1k extra tax revenue per head from the North Sea could be spent. Now the north sea, in tax terms, is pretty much a liability with massive reliefs and clear up costs to be funded.

I could go on but the truth is that an independent Scotland is currently far less viable than it was in 2014. A second referendum would be lost more substantially than the first. Nicola is waiting for the tides to change but she does have problems with the more impatient elements of her party.

I did say you can argue it both ways !!

If you don’t like the result of one referendum, you can have another.

That principle could apply to the 2014 SIndy referendum, or to any future referendums.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

As a wind up it is not one of TSE's better efforts.

It's not a wind up, the SNP are looking to break up the United Kingdom by using Brexit, they've gone public, that merits a thread.

I'm sorry you don't like that but it does have a lot of (betting) implications, if you notice I'm also rather disdainful of the people behind the 'people's vote'.

Get used to referendums, they are not going away. That genie is not going back in its bottle.

My main issue with a Sindy ref 2.0 is that it makes it a little harder for a Rejoin vote to succeed in England, though I think that winnable.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

Quite the reverse. It is a useful precedent when you want a second referendum yourself.

Of course Nicola Sturgeon, who is one of our more competent politicians, only wants a second referendum if she thinks she can win it. And there are some problems with that.

Last time around, rather like some deluded ERG members, we were repeatedly assured that a velvet divorce with rUK would be the easiest deal in history. Anyone claiming that now is likely to be laughed at.

Last time around there was an argument about whether Scotland could remain in the EU and thus the SM with rUK. What is clear, post Brexit, is that Scotland will have to choose and the SM with rUK is generally thought to be about 4x as important as the EU for Scottish trade.

Last time around there were many posters boasting about how the £1k extra tax revenue per head from the North Sea could be spent. Now the north sea, in tax terms, is pretty much a liability with massive reliefs and clear up costs to be funded.

I could go on but the truth is that an independent Scotland is currently far less viable than it was in 2014. A second referendum would be lost more substantially than the first. Nicola is waiting for the tides to change but she does have problems with the more impatient elements of her party.

I did say you can argue it both ways !!

If you don’t like the result of one referendum, you can have another.

That principle could apply to the 2014 SIndy referendum, or to any future referendums.

Or we all agree that the "peoples vote" stuff is dangerous nonsense that a mature democracy should have no part of.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

I vaguely recall the United States taking a particularly firm line on that.

What the Brexit shitshow shows is that if you have a referendum it's best done by a government that has a workable proposal to change something, and will then take responsibilty for it if the voters agree to do it. I don't think Cameron's innovation of having a referendum on something undefined that he thought was a terrible idea is something anyone will want to repeat, even if it may take another referendum to extract the country from the resulting treacle swamp.

At the same time if the voters of Scotland vote for a pro-independence government again, and they want to come back with a new proposal, or the same proposal in different circumstances (eg post-Brexit) that sounds totally legitimate to me. I don't really see how you could reasonably deny them the right to do it.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

Lol. 'You don't get to speak for Jocks, I speak for Jocks!'

Since the UK isn't a federal state, successful or otherwise, you'll have to dig up a less crappy hypothetical.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

Lol. 'You don't get to speak for Jocks, I speak for Jocks!'

Since the UK isn't a federal state, successful or otherwise, you'll have to dig up a less crappy hypothetical.

Would you support an attempt at independence based on the SNP getting more than 50% of the seats at Holyrood with less than 50% of the votes?

I suspect that following the experience of Brexit the last thing that the people of Scotland would want is a further extended period of constitutional trauma. That is why I expect the SNP to struggle at the next Westminster election to exceed circa 33%.

I suspect this may be right, or partially right.

The incredible thing is that there was not a third Quebec referendum, despite the PQ losing the last one traumatically by (50 - epsilon) to (50 + epsilon). There was not one more heave.

I think the same will be true of Europe. We will exit with May’s deal (or something very like it put forward by Gove or Corby), and then interest in Europe will die away after all the paroxysms of rage and angst.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. If we do leave the EU we will be rejoining in absolute max ten years (and probably less than 5). And the backlash from the younger generations against the dying political forces that brought us there is going to resound for a generation at least.

SNP currently have a mandate to hold a second independence referendum. It was in their Westminster and Holyrood manifestos; both of which they won. Sure UK government could refuse to engage but why would they? Cameron respected the result of the 2011 election, gave the section 30 order and went on to win the referendum. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and May would be daft to dismiss the elected government of Scotland and the SNP would use it as more proof that Westminister doesn't listen, etc.

SNP currently have a mandate to hold a second independence referendum. It was in their Westminster and Holyrood manifestos; both of which they won. Sure UK government could refuse to engage but why would they? Cameron respected the result of the 2011 election, gave the section 30 order and went on to win the referendum. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and May would be daft to dismiss the elected government of Scotland and the SNP would use it as more proof that Westminister doesn't listen, etc.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

Lol. 'You don't get to speak for Jocks, I speak for Jocks!'

Since the UK isn't a federal state, successful or otherwise, you'll have to dig up a less crappy hypothetical.

Would you support an attempt at independence based on the SNP getting more than 50% of the seats at Holyrood with less than 50% of the votes?

I'd support it as a very, very strong basis for another referendum. Of course, if you believe that the ST piece is anything other than speculative, kite flying 'senior sources' guff, you're probably going to torment yourself with secessionist UDI nightmares, but I'd advise against that.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

Lol. 'You don't get to speak for Jocks, I speak for Jocks!'

Since the UK isn't a federal state, successful or otherwise, you'll have to dig up a less crappy hypothetical.

Would you support an attempt at independence based on the SNP getting more than 50% of the seats at Holyrood with less than 50% of the votes?

I'd support it as a very, very strong basis for another referendum. Of course, if you believe that that Times piece is anything other than speculative, kite flying 'senior sources' guff, you're probably going to torment yourself with secessionist UDI nightmares, but I'd advise against that.

I think your position is absolutely fair enough, especially given the change of circumstances should Brexit proceed. The Times piece is nonsense.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

Lol. 'You don't get to speak for Jocks, I speak for Jocks!'

Since the UK isn't a federal state, successful or otherwise, you'll have to dig up a less crappy hypothetical.

Would you support an attempt at independence based on the SNP getting more than 50% of the seats at Holyrood with less than 50% of the votes?

I'd support it as a very, very strong basis for another referendum. Of course, if you believe that that Times piece is anything other than speculative, kite flying 'senior sources' guff, you're probably going to torment yourself with secessionist UDI nightmares, but I'd advise against that.

SNP MP Joanna Cherry suggested in October that the party’s goal could be achieved through a “democratic event” rather than another referendum.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

I vaguely recall the United States taking a particularly firm line on that.

Looking back after being away for a while that's what came to my mind. On the other hand look what's happened to the Soviet Union.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

I think the question most of the "people's vote" brigade don't want to answer is what happens in the event of a second leave vote? I think if we had a second referendum leave would win by a fairly handy margin just by campaigning on the "who really runs the country" and the whole "people vs the elites" that has torn through the rest of Europe and the US.

What is there not to answer? In the event of a second Leave vote the UK leaves...

Hopefully at that point, either as a referendum choice or as a decision by parliament before the referendum, we also have a bit more idea *how* it leaves, eg with TMay's deal, don't take any deal, etc.

Exactly. The logic for a second vote is that the proposition in the first vote wasn't specified, and now that we know what it is people should have their say before we reach the point of no return. If people vote for the Leave proposition then everything is clear.

SNP currently have a mandate to hold a second independence referendum. It was in their Westminster and Holyrood manifestos; both of which they won. Sure UK government could refuse to engage but why would they? Cameron respected the result of the 2011 election, gave the section 30 order and went on to win the referendum. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and May would be daft to dismiss the elected government of Scotland and the SNP would use it as more proof that Westminister doesn't listen, etc.

I think the question most of the "people's vote" brigade don't want to answer is what happens in the event of a second leave vote? I think if we had a second referendum leave would win by a fairly handy margin just by campaigning on the "who really runs the country" and the whole "people vs the elites" that has torn through the rest of Europe and the US.

What is there not to answer? In the event of a second Leave vote the UK leaves...

Hopefully at that point, either as a referendum choice or as a decision by parliament before the referendum, we also have a bit more idea *how* it leaves, eg with TMay's deal, don't take any deal, etc.

Exactly. The logic for a second vote is that the proposition in the first vote wasn't specified, and now that we know what it is people should have their say before we reach the point of no return. If people vote for the Leave proposition then everything is clear.

The logic for a second vote is that "people" didn't vote the right way the first time round.

Should they fail to vote the "right" way a second time, the logic will be for a third. And a fourth. And a fifth.

Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.

Let’s not have any more drivel please.

Absolutely, these pesky Jocks should be content to remain in a union that requires them to beg permission to vote on their continuing membership. Nothing like the dreaded EUSSR that allows their members to vote on leaving any time they like, eh?

You don’t get to speak for ‘Jocks’ when it comes to the Union. More Scots share my view that it should continue than yours that it should end.

Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.

Lol. 'You don't get to speak for Jocks, I speak for Jocks!'

Since the UK isn't a federal state, successful or otherwise, you'll have to dig up a less crappy hypothetical.

Would you support an attempt at independence based on the SNP getting more than 50% of the seats at Holyrood with less than 50% of the votes?

I'd support it as a very, very strong basis for another referendum. Of course, if you believe that that Times piece is anything other than speculative, kite flying 'senior sources' guff, you're probably going to torment yourself with secessionist UDI nightmares, but I'd advise against that.

SNP MP Joanna Cherry suggested in October that the party’s goal could be achieved through a “democratic event” rather than another referendum.

Cannae see it masel'. Of course there's been lots of things happening recently which I didn't foresee, only for them to magically materialise before me (none of them good).

Present polls don't back me up on this but I think independence will win next time. There won't be a No coalition and the Conservatives, who can count on a solid 25 - 30% of the population will be making the opposite case in their own. And doing so in the context of having dragged Scotland out of the EU against its will and messed up generally.

I suspect that following the experience of Brexit the last thing that the people of Scotland would want is a further extended period of constitutional trauma. That is why I expect the SNP to struggle at the next Westminster election to exceed circa 33%.

I suspect this may be right, or partially right.

The incredible thing is that there was not a third Quebec referendum, despite the PQ losing the last one traumatically by (50 - epsilon) to (50 + epsilon). There was not one more heave.

I think the same will be true of Europe. We will exit with May’s deal (or something very like it put forward by Gove or Corby), and then interest in Europe will die away after all the paroxysms of rage and angst.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. If we do leave the EU we will be rejoining in absolute max ten years (and probably less than 5). And the backlash from the younger generations against the dying political forces that brought us there is going to resound for a generation at least.

I think it is much more likely that we don't ever leave.

If we do leave, I think it is hard to see us rejoin as full members. .

Minds have been concentrated by Mrs May’s suggestion of a TV debate between herself and Mr Corbyn. This has forced Labour people to confront the truth that their Brexit fudges are crumbling before everyone’s eyes. No one thinks Labour could negotiate all the benefits of being within the EU for Britain while no longer being a member. Labour spokespeople struggle to defend that posture through short interviews. Ninety minutes of sustained scrutiny of Mr Corbyn about Brexit on primetime TV comes with substantial perils for Labour, especially if its leader is left exposed on whether the people should have the final say

I think the question most of the "people's vote" brigade don't want to answer is what happens in the event of a second leave vote? I think if we had a second referendum leave would win by a fairly handy margin just by campaigning on the "who really runs the country" and the whole "people vs the elites" that has torn through the rest of Europe and the US.

What is there not to answer? In the event of a second Leave vote the UK leaves...

Hopefully at that point, either as a referendum choice or as a decision by parliament before the referendum, we also have a bit more idea *how* it leaves, eg with TMay's deal, don't take any deal, etc.

Exactly. The logic for a second vote is that the proposition in the first vote wasn't specified, and now that we know what it is people should have their say before we reach the point of no return. If people vote for the Leave proposition then everything is clear.

The logic for a second vote is that "people" didn't vote the right way the first time round.

Should they fail to vote the "right" way a second time, the logic will be for a third. And a fourth. And a fifth.

That's just projecting your prejudices onto the situation. I don't see much doubt that if a specific Leave proposition is put to the people and accepted, that's the path we will take.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. If we do leave the EU we will be rejoining in absolute max ten years (and probably less than 5). And the backlash from the younger generations against the dying political forces that brought us there is going to resound for a generation at least.

The ratchet will only realistically turn one way post-exit and it isn't going to towards the EU.

There is going to be electoral gold in promising to right perceived wrongs in the deal even if they are of little economic consequence.

Conversely the pathways for rejoining are going to be limited...

1. No Conservative leader is ever going to be elected by the membership/party on a platform of rejoining.

2. A new Labour leader might but my feeling is that the downsides electorally of campaigning on a manifesto of another referendum/direct entry will outweigh the gains from the ever dwindling band of remainers who would still be making the subject a priority.

3. The Lib Dems will in all likelihood become the net gainers from disaffected remainers who cannot reconcile themselves to the result.

The reason remainers in parliament are fighting so hard is that they realise that once we're out the chances of persuading the public to rejoin are very, very slim.

Unfortunately many leavers regard the UK breaking up as a reasonable price for leaving, and I would not be surprised is some remainers think breaking up the UK is a good price to remain - after all, we'd still be in some sort of union with the scots.

And frankly, Brexit or no Brexit, scotland is going to have another vote at some point so long as they continue to elect the SNP in droves.The reduced percentage at 2017 certainly helped justify a pause, but if they continue to push for one and the people keep electing them it at some point is unreasonable to say no.

I think the question most of the "people's vote" brigade don't want to answer is what happens in the event of a second leave vote? I think if we had a second referendum leave would win by a fairly handy margin just by campaigning on the "who really runs the country" and the whole "people vs the elites" that has torn through the rest of Europe and the US.

What is there not to answer? In the event of a second Leave vote the UK leaves...

Hopefully at that point, either as a referendum choice or as a decision by parliament before the referendum, we also have a bit more idea *how* it leaves, eg with TMay's deal, don't take any deal, etc.

Exactly. The logic for a second vote is that the proposition in the first vote wasn't specified, and now that we know what it is people should have their say before we reach the point of no return. If people vote for the Leave proposition then everything is clear.

The logic for a second vote is that "people" didn't vote the right way the first time round.

Should they fail to vote the "right" way a second time, the logic will be for a third. And a fourth. And a fifth.

That's just projecting your prejudices onto the situation.

A second might settle it, it might not, but there is no doubt the logic for the vote is because people voted the wrong way. This is clear because the justification is that people have changed their minds more than we just need to confirm things - so many second referendum supporters make clear it is about how this is the chance to stop Brexit, without even considering the possibility it might reconfirm it but harder. I think it is facetious to pretend it is not about getting it right this time. And I speak as one who does back a vote, simply as the most likely, if hardly certain, way of getting close to a resolution, whatever the outcome.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. If we do leave the EU we will be rejoining in absolute max ten years (and probably less than 5). And the backlash from the younger generations against the dying political forces that brought us there is going to resound for a generation at least.

The ratchet will only realistically turn one way post-exit and it isn't going to towards the EU.

There is going to be electoral gold in promising to right perceived wrongs in the deal even if they are of little economic consequence.

Conversely the pathways for rejoining are going to be limited...

1. No Conservative leader is ever going to be elected by the membership/party on a platform of rejoining.

2. A new Labour leader might but my feeling is that the downsides electorally of campaigning on a manifesto of another referendum/direct entry will outweigh the gains from the ever dwindling band of remainers who would still be making the subject a priority.

3. The Lib Dems will in all likelihood become the net gainers from disaffected remainers who cannot reconcile themselves to the result.

The reason remainers in parliament are fighting so hard is that they realise that once we're out the chances of persuading the public to rejoin are very, very slim.

They are in last chance saloon.

The secret lies in embracing the Vassal State. Nothing very bad has happened. We willingly do what we are told by the EU, who are no longer incentivised to act in our interest, because we are out. We don't have to stick a blue flag and stars in our official documents. If we are OK with that, we won't rejoin.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. If we do leave the EU we will be rejoining in absolute max ten years (and probably less than 5). And the backlash from the younger generations against the dying political forces that brought us there is going to resound for a generation at least.

The ratchet will only realistically turn one way post-exit and it isn't going to towards the EU.

There is going to be electoral gold in promising to right perceived wrongs in the deal even if they are of little economic consequence.

Conversely the pathways for rejoining are going to be limited...

1. No Conservative leader is ever going to be elected by the membership/party on a platform of rejoining.

2. A new Labour leader might but my feeling is that the downsides electorally of campaigning on a manifesto of another referendum/direct entry will outweigh the gains from the ever dwindling band of remainers who would still be making the subject a priority.

3. The Lib Dems will in all likelihood become the net gainers from disaffected remainers who cannot reconcile themselves to the result.

The reason remainers in parliament are fighting so hard is that they realise that once we're out the chances of persuading the public to rejoin are very, very slim.

They are in last chance saloon.

And bless them, they're going to fail, again. Because it's the same tactic, again, only this time it's 'no deal' that's the doomsday scenario.

Re Labour and a second referendum. It should be pointed out that if they are currently trying to put down amendments to make “No deal” impossible (whether or not you agree they can do that) then one thing is certain - there cannot be any referendum supported by them which includes “no deal” as an option.

Unfortunately many leavers regard the UK breaking up as a reasonable price for leaving, and I would not be surprised is some remainers think breaking up the UK is a good price to remain - after all, we'd still be in some sort of union with the scots.

And frankly, Brexit or no Brexit, scotland is going to have another vote at some point so long as they continue to elect the SNP in droves.The reduced percentage at 2017 certainly helped justify a pause, but if they continue to push for one and the people keep electing them it at some point is unreasonable to say no.

I think the question most of the "people's vote" brigade don't want to answer is what happens in the event of a second leave vote? I think if we had a second referendum leave would win by a fairly handy margin just by campaigning on the "who really runs the country" and the whole "people vs the elites" that has torn through the rest of Europe and the US.

What is there not to answer? In the event of a second Leave vote the UK leaves...

Hopefully at that point, either as a referendum choice or as a decision by parliament before the referendum, we also have a bit more idea *how* it leaves, eg with TMay's deal, don't take any deal, etc.

Exactly. The logic for a second vote is that the proposition in the first vote wasn't specified, and now that we know what it is people should have their say before we reach the point of no return. If people vote for the Leave proposition then everything is clear.

The logic for a second vote is that "people" didn't vote the right way the first time round.

Should they fail to vote the "right" way a second time, the logic will be for a third. And a fourth. And a fifth.

That's just projecting your prejudices onto the situation.

A second might settle it, it might not, but there is no doubt the logic for the vote is because people voted the wrong way. This is clear because the justification is that people have changed their minds more than we just need to confirm things - so many second referendum supporters make clear it is about how this is the chance to stop Brexit, without even considering the possibility it might reconfirm it but harder. I think it is facetious to pretend it is not about getting it right this time. And I speak as one who does back a vote, simply as the most likely, if hardly certain, way of getting close to a resolution, whatever the outcome.

Of course, but the argument for "getting it right" is hugely strengthened by the complete lack of information about what Leave would involve, last time around. To go from that to suggesting never-ending re-runs is just being facetious.